Cosmetic DLC Isn’t Evil, And It’s Probably Keeping Game Prices Down

This week, there has been much hand-wringing over Evolve. It’s not because the game is multiplayer-focused. It’s not even the confusing pre-order/pre-purchase options. No, this week we’re revisiting one of gaming’s most contentious sometimes-issues: day one DLC.

Since it began on consoles in the PlayStation 2/Xbox era, gamers have had a complicated relationship with add-on content. In its infancy, the phenomenon was heralded as a revolutionary way to interact with games over longer periods. There were even promises of Valve Workshop-style stores in the run-up to the Xbox 360 launch.

The reality is far less glamorous, because DLC (like nearly everything else in the gaming world) had some pretty significant growing pains. These were, in part, due to minimal education efforts from publishers.

For instance, when EA started selling unlock codes on the Xbox Live Marketplace, gamers immediately asked why items like bonus in-game currency and weapon unlocks (available in many older games as button-based cheat codes) were now carrying a price tag. EA never successfully bridged the gap for consumers with acceptable reasons for the practice.

When Bethesda sold the wildly successful horse armor for The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, players questioned why we needed such a thing (many of them doing so as they pressed the button to purchase). Horse armor has become a well-worn joke in the industry, but Bethesda is having the last laugh.

While frustration with these practices rumbled under the surface for years, blowback didn’t erupt until publishers started pushing DLC on the same day as full-priced retail releases. Gamers started coming home (often updating the game with a day one patch) and then stared down a growing list of gameplay-enhancing add-ons.

The outcry was understandable. The communication from publishers behind these efforts was typically poor, and some gamers to this day question how DLC can possibly be in development before a game is entirely finished (short answer: not every staff person works on every stage of a game, and this keeps people employed).

Day-one DLC became entangled with disc-locked content (Capcom in particular was notorious for this practice with regard to costumes and skins). Gamers used to unlock these elements through play, and now developers were walling them off on the disc, making us pay for access to them.

This was a hotter issue at the start of last generation, when gamers were stomaching a 20 percent increase in the base price of games. In nearly a decade, retail prices have remained largely constant. We’re paying $60 today for games that on large offer overwhelmingly superior visuals, audio, gameplay features, and interconnectivity than the ones for which we paid the same price in 2005. 

Budgets are increasing significantly. Whether those costs are being kept under control is a topic that has come up before (particularly with regard to the Tomb Raider reboot and comments made by Square Enix in 2013). Regardless of why, though, bottom line costs to make a game continue to mount, and we’re still paying the same price of entry.

On a PAX East panel in 2014, former Harmonix director of publishing and public relations John Drake laid it out bluntly. “$60 per customer just isn’t enough,” he said. Publishers found themselves looking for ways to offer more content with more reasonable development costs.

Out of this reality was born the season pass, a way for publishers to collect revenue early for unreleased add-on content while a game is getting buzz. (There is more to how this works in the accounting department, but the principle is what matters here.) It also spurred the creation of heaps of customization content. Evolve is only the latest title to offer players the chance to doll up their characters on the first day. 

Gears of War 3 launched with $45 of weapon skins. Fighting game players have been paying for costume DLC at launch for years. The Batman Arkham series offers up classic costumes you can buy but not use in the campaign until you’ve finished the story. The Last of Us rolled out pack after pack of customization items for its multiplayer campaign. When they were all released, Sony stopped offering the bundle pricing that made them more affordable.

When Evolve was released this week, it became a punching bag because of $61 of cosmetic offerings (a number that was widely misreported as more than $130). These reports touched off a wave of anger aimed at Turtle Rock Studios and 2K. But here is the reality. Evolve’s DLC does not impact gameplay. It is not Mass Effect’ 3s additional character. It is not the actual ending of the game as was offered for Asura’s Wrath. It’s completely cosmetic.

Where it counts, Evolve does DLC right. There are more maps coming, and they'll be free for everyone. When new hunters and monsters are released, the player base won't be fractured. You'll be able to play alongside people that have the new characters, even if you don't open your wallet again.

Yes, I’d love to return to a time when we could unlock the coolest skins through gameplay and use them as badges of honor in multiplayer. Those days are fading, though. These entirely optional items are the new avenue to looking slightly different in-game.

Publishers are making these additional items available for a price, and believe it or not, these customization downloads make big money. At the same time, they are giving publishers a way to monetize the player base that’s interested in looking prettier in game without impacting the entire market with higher base pricing.

Development costs are rising, consumer pricing is level. Something’s got to give, or in this case, someone who is gleefully spending money on in-game skins.

Cell phone manufacturers aren't evil for selling colorful cases for your phone. Nintendo isn't exploiting customers with New 3DS faceplates (in the markets that version is being sold). Publishers aren't evil for selling cosmetic DLC. It's time we stopped vilifying the practice. After all, it's entirely opt in.